Saturday, January 18, 2014

What is a Liberal Christian?

We often talk about various Christians in broad categories like  “conservative,” “liberal,” “evangelical,” “progressive,” and “moderate.” In this post, I want to explore the term “liberal,” because I think of these terms it is the most difficult to define.

Part of the reason for the difficulty is that "liberal" has at least two meanings that are really quite different from one another. On the one hand, “liberal” could mean a commitment to intellectual virtue. In this sense, a liberal is someone who wishes to get all the ideas out on the table and argue them out using the tools of reason and logic. Opposing ideas are given fair consideration and are accurately represented. Conceivably, one’s mind could be changed on even very deeply held convictions. This is the idea behind a “liberal” education. Students are taught to think, not simply what to think. Yes, there are certain facts and ideas that one should simply have in hand, but all ideas, at least in theory, are subject to critical examination. Theology, then, is as Anselm put it, faith seeking understanding. While it is entirely permissible, even expected, that one will hold certain faith claims, all ideas are subject to intellectual, reasonable, and critical examination.

On the other hand, Christian liberalism represents a set of theological positions. Because this is a blog post, I’m going to have to paint in broad strokes, so please bear with me. Most often, Friedrich Schleiermacher is identified as the father of liberal theology. For Schleiermacher and others like him, individual experience authorized theological claims. This idea would come to bear in powerful ways on subsequent liberal Christian theology. Scholars such as David Friedrich Strauss and Albert Schweitzer would advance theological claims based upon their own modernist formation and experience of the world. In the 20th century, existentialist theologians such as Bultmann and Tillich, owing much to the philosophical writings of Kierkegaard and Heidegger, would become leading voices in Christian theological discourse. These scholars, and Bultmann in particular, would have a tremendous influence upon biblical scholars. Bultmann’s project of “demythologizing” the Bible came to bear in extraordinary ways up on the methodological presuppositions of many who came after him. Ostensibly intellectually responsible scholarship would have to proceed from a modernist perspective in which God’s direct intervention into the cause and effect of history was methodologically eliminated from consideration.

Later, particularly in mainline Protestant traditions, process theology would come to dominate the theological landscape. While not incompatible with existentialist theology, process theology does involve a set of metaphysical claims that differentiate it from other forms of liberal theology. Scholars such as Charles Hartshorne, Schubert Ogden, John Cobb, and Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki are among the leading figures in this area. Like existentialist theologians, process theologians do not see God’s direct intervention in the cause and effect of history as reasonable. The resurrection of Jesus, for example, must be understood as a story or symbol, but not as an accurate representation of a historical event. In this sense, both existentialist and process theologies involved significant revisions, and even abandonments, of many of the claims of historic Christian orthodoxy, even while employing much of the same language. The popular Christian writer Marcus Borg is heavily indebted to process thought, as is made apparent in his book The God We Never Knew.  It is difficult to overstate, moreover, the effect that these traditions had upon theological education in the so-called “mainline” traditions.

At some point, things changed again. In particular, during the 1970’s, 80’s, and 90’s, theological positions emerged that were grounded explicitly first and foremost in the life-situations of particular communities. One’s lived experience authorized particular religious claims. In a way, we’re back to Schleiermacher now, except that lived experience is now defined communally, rather than individually. Essentially, the argument goes that belonging to a particular community of interpretation gives one a unique perspective that authorizes faith claims that people outside of this community are ill-positioned to see. Liberation theology often proceeds in this way. Clearly there is a great deal to say for this position. Our communities and life settings do in fact come to bear in remarkable ways upon how we see the world. People who write from the perspective of disability studies, for example, have things to say that able-bodied and able-minded people may not see at all.

One liability of this type of argument, however, is that some people see the claims made from inside a community as immune from critique from outside a community. If you criticize the position of a community not your own, you are only demonstrating your own prejudice against that community and therefore validating its claims to marginalization. This is an intellectually unhealthy perspective. A second liability is the danger of emphasizing communal experience to the neglect of divine revelation. Yes, our lived experiences shape the ways in which we think about God, but that is not to say that they should be wholly determinative of our faith claims. Christians have long held that God has taught us things about God’s own nature, being, and relationship to humankind. We sometimes talk about this as “special divine revelation,” meaning that these ideas are not ones that we could discover on our own.

This type of identity-based theology is not necessarily revisionist in the senses that existentialist and process theologies are. In other words, you need not significantly revise traditional understandings of the Trinity, Incarnation, Resurrection, salvation, and other historic doctrines in order to speak out of the experience of a particular community of interpretation. If, however, one gives epistemological precedence to communal experience over divine revelation, then it is likely that the historic doctrines of the faith will do little heavy lifting.

At some point, liberal Christians stopped using the term “liberal” and started using the term “progressive.” I’ve really never understood this move, except that the term “progressive” expresses a positive value judgment that “liberal” does not (at least, in our current context). Progressive Christianity now includes a very broad range of positions influenced by existentialist, process, and identity-based theology. It is still the dominant form of thinking in mainline Protestant traditions and theological education. It is difficult to identify what characterizes progressive Christianity today, but I’ll go out on a limb (and I’m putting on my Kevlar jacket right now). Its emphasis is on social justice, variously conceived, rather than on the Trinitarian economy of salvation. This is not to say that progressives necessarily reject the Trinitarian economy of salvation (though some do), but it is not the main emphasis of their proclamation. Some progressive Christians, however, would identify salvation as almost entirely defined by social justice.

Now, I don’t know any Christians who would say that they are against social justice. We may conceive of it differently from one another, but, generally speaking, we all believe that God offers to us a righteous, life-giving way of ordering our relationships. What sometimes gets lost in talk about social justice, however, is that, as Christians, we cannot know what social justice is apart from God’s self disclosure through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. In other words, special divine revelation is necessary for us to know what social justice is. Additionally, the Christian life is not simply about emulating Jesus or abiding by his teachings (though these are important), but the transformative power of Jesus’ cross and resurrection mediated to us by the work of the Holy Spirit. In other words, a well-articulated understanding of the Trinitarian faith of the Church, and an experience of the Trinitarian economy of salvation, are necessary in order for us to reach a point at which we can talk about social justice as Christians.

This is why I stopped identifying with progressive Christianity years ago. It’s not that progressives don’t have important things to say.  Clearly they do. It’s that, for me, Christian proclamation must lead with a clear articulation of the nature and identity of the God we serve. This God is revealed to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This God shows up in history. This God really did become human, really did die, and really did rise from the dead. And this God does not leave us alone, but is at work powerfully, all over the world, leading people into more righteous lives that will continue into eternity. An emphasis on social justice that does not first reckon with these beliefs is not enough, at least not for me. I’m a liberal in the first sense discussed in this post: I believe in getting the ideas out on the table and having open, honest, intellectually virtuous discussion. The emphases of the liberal/progressive Christian movement today, however, are not such that I feel comfortable identifying with it.


I’ve tried to represent liberal/progressive Christianity as fairly as I can here. I’m sure I’ve left things out, and perhaps gotten a few things wrong. I think this is the longest post I’ve ever written (and congratulations if you made it to the end) because it deals with a very complex topic. I welcome your comments, but I’d appreciate your adopting a liberal perspective (in the first sense).

26 comments:

  1. David, Thank you for this post. It provides a historical sweep that is beyond my knowledge. I do find it interesting at the end that you couch your statements in words such as "at least for me." I assume this is just intellectual humility, but it also has echoes for me of some of the theological issues you raise in your post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair point, John. I just don't want to say that people who disagree with me don't have good reasons for thinking what they do. Maybe I should have been a little more assertive than this.

      Delete
  2. Thank you for this summary and commentary on liberal/progressive Christianity. I especially appreciate the distinction between liberal "faith seeking understanding" and the liberal process-, existentialist-, and identity-based theologies. Your commentary is very helpful in articulating my own beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is an excellent and very helpful description of liberal/progressive theology. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. first of all, ahhhh. my brain had a deep and unreachable itch. second, very funny last paragraph. thirdly, I'm thinking. I love thinking. One of the things I think is that some day we're going to see Jesus standing in the kitchen shaking his head and saying "you kids and your clubs." Great piece of writing and thinking, and thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This may be too far down the rabbit hole, but I wonder how you fit Amos Yong in this story. Isn't his use of disability theology a kind of identity theology as you describe it here? It seems to me in reading his work, he does make the move you highlight -- giving the experience of the community an epistemological privilege.

    If that is so, I wonder how his insights need to be engaged critically.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was thinking of Amos as I was writing part of this, John. He certainly does identify the community of people with disabilities as having insights that others do not, but I don't think he ever undercuts the notion of special divine revelation. He might say that we need to think about some of the traditional doctrines from new angles, but the core doctrines of Christian faith are right at the center of his work.

      Delete
  6. Thank you all very much for the comments. If this piece was helpful to you, I'm glad.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your article sheds helpful light and understanding of the contemporary Christian church "divide." How about an equally helpful article dealing with the differentiation between conservative and fundamentalistic, or whatever matrix would provide a parallel conversation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for this suggestion, JohnV. If I get up the gumption I may tackle it sometime. It would be very hard to write, though, because you have to consider not only evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, but Orthodox and Roman Catholics, and other groups as well. I suppose the post could be simplified by focusing on Protestantism, but that hardly seems complete.

      Delete
  8. I hope more folks read this. Too often, people adopt both labels of progressive and liberal and use them interchangeably.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that's true, and it creates (further) confusion in our categories.

      Delete
  9. "Christian proclamation must lead with a clear articulation of the nature and identity of the God we serve." <--------Thank you Dr. Watson!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for writing this. It kind of led me to opine again on how to best describe my own theology.

    http://questorpastor.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/what-am-i/

    ReplyDelete
  11. By leading with a clear proclamation that, "This God really did become human, really did die, and really did rise from the dead," aren't you asserting that the most important thing God wants us to do is to believe that He literally impregnated a teenage virgin girl, and that baby grew into a man who was killed and then his corpse was resuscitated? I think a liberal Christian might argue that misses the entire point of the Good News.

    ReplyDelete
  12. By leading with a clear proclamation that, "This God really did become human, really did die, and really did rise from the dead," aren't you asserting that the most important thing God wants us to do is to believe that He literally impregnated a teenage virgin girl, and that baby grew into a man who was killed and then his corpse was resuscitated? I think a liberal Christian might argue that misses the entire point of the Good News.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I'm not asserting that "the most important thing God wants us to do is believe," though belief is very important. My assertion is that it is crucial to understand who God is and what God has done for our salvation, and that talk of ethics and social justice don't make sense for Christians apart from such understanding. Moreover, Christians have traditionally claimed that what Jesus experienced was resurrection, not resuscitation. There is a vast difference between these, though neither can be understood properly apart from the body.

      Delete
  13. Very helpful! Gave my brain it's last workout of the day!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have seen a history of the pendulum swinging throughout Christian history. I see it swinging again regarding social justice. I believe that social justice is inherent in the Gospel and that Micah 6:8 is the hinge between the OT and the NT way of life.

    ReplyDelete
  15. David, this is a thoughtful and intriguing essay, both intellectually honest and gracious toward differing views. I'm going to republish it on United Methodist Insight. I think it's a model for us to consider as we continue to struggle across the UMC with many issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great, Cynthia. I'm glad you found it helpful. I hope others do as well.

      Delete
  16. My favorite paragraph is the second to last, where you drop the mic, albeit in a very diplomatic and politically correct way. I think this mic should be be dropped with authority, though. Otherwise, the Liberation Theologians win. Or maybe I have it all wrong. Layman.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Drop the mic" is not a phrase that has ever been used on my blog before, but I'm glad it has now.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I suppose this might not be the most fair definition since it pegs me as a conservative theologically in generally, but I see liberal theology as "an over valuing of unity at the cost of truth." I see unity and truth as key principles in the bible, but liberal theology tends to over emphasis unity. Many liberalizing denominations draw compromise after compromise to keep unity at the cost of truth. You will see some conservative churches of course which seem to lack a robust concept of unity and adiaphora.

    ReplyDelete
  19. THE MEANING OF "FOR"


    "FOR"Defined: In order to obtain, to gain or acquire.

    Matthew 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

    Jesus shed His blood "for" the forgiveness of the sins of all those who obey His terms for pardon. "For" means in order to obtain forgiveness. "For" did not mean that Jesus shed His blood because the forgiveness of sins had already been granted.

    Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

    Peter told them to repent, and be baptized "for" the forgiveness of sins. Peter did not tell them to repent, and be baptized because their sins had already been forgiven.

    "For" means in order to obtain.
    "For" does not mean already has obtained.

    Although "for" is not stated in all of the follow Scriptures. "For" is certainly implied.

    Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

    Grace and faith are "for" salvation.
    In order to obtain salvation, grace and faith are essential; grace precedes salvation and faith must precede salvation.

    John 3:5 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

    Being born of water and the Spirit are "for" entry into the kingdom of God. You must be born of water and the Spirit in order to obtain entry in the kingdom of God. You are not born of water and the Spirit because you are already a member of God's kingdom.

    Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteous, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,



    God's mercy is "for" salvation. The washing of regeneration (that being water baptism) is "for" salvation. Renewing by the Holy Spirit is "for" salvation. God's mercy, the washing of regeneration (water baptism), and renewing by the Holy Spirit are all in order to obtain salvation. God's mercy precedes salvation. You are not baptized because you are already saved. You are not renewed by the Holy Spirit because you have already been saved.

    Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

    Confessing Jesus as Lord is "for" salvation. Believing in your heart that God raised Jesus from the grave is "for" salvation. Confessing Jesus as Lord and believing God raised Him from the dead is in order to obtain salvation. You do not confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised Him from the dead because you have already been saved.

    Mark 16:16 He who has believed and been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

    Believing is "for" salvation. Being baptized is "for" salvation. Belief and water baptism are in order to obtain salvation.
    You do not believe because you have already been saved. You are not baptized because you have already been saved.

    "FOR" means in order to obtain.

    Jesus shed is blood in order that men might obtain forgiveness from sin. IT WAS "FOR" THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. (Matthew 26:28)

    Men repent and are baptized in water so that they may obtain forgiveness from sins. THEY DO IT "FOR" THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.(Acts 2:38)

    Although many claim that the "for" in Acts 2:38 really means "because of" there is not one translation that I know of that translates it that way.

    (All Scripture quotes from: NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE)


    YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY BLOG. http//:steve-finnell.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete